The theory is yours so the burden of proof is yours - 'Nylon-eating' bacteria

In regard to your comment:
"Since the bonds involved aren't found in natural products, the enzymes must have arisen since the time nylon was invented (around the 1940s). It would appear this happened by new mutations in that time period."

This 'evidence' is purely based on the evolutionary presupposition that they were NEVER there to begin with. Without proof of that , you are back to the bacteria still being nothing but more bacteria that are NO MORE complex.

"Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident)...
P. aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources—such as toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkanes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively. Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also reside on plasmids).
The chromosome of P. aeruginosa has 6.3 million base pairs, which makes it one of the largest bacterial genomes sequenced. Being a large genome means that only a relatively low mutation rate can be tolerated within the actual chromosome, otherwise error catastrophe would result. There is no way that normal mutations in the chromosome could generate a new enzyme in nine days and hypermutation of the chromosome itself would result in non-viable bacteria. Plasmids seem to be adaptive elements designed to make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome...
It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"Antibiotic resistant bacteria evolution:
Why is it that NO bacteria have been discovered that possess more complexity and … why are they still bacteria?"

Perhaps you better read this FAQ at TalkOrigins. There are plenty of examples of increased complexity evolving.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html